Since I haven't said anything about the California recall election in my LiveJournal and it's already come and gone, I guess now is the perfect time to bring it up.

First, I note that I did my civic duty on Tuesday and voted. There were no lines at my polling location and I was able to go right up and vote. I looked and looked all over the ballot, but couldn't find anything about Arnold anywhere. I was a little disappointed, because it was only on Monday that I realized that I was eligible to vote in the election. It turns out, however, that only the people who actually live in California were allowed to vote on the whole Arnold thing. Oh, well. There was one local issue for me to vote on as well as getting to cast my vote for the mayor, three council at-large seats, and the council seat for my district (all primaries, of course). Turns out that I voted in the minority in every case. At least the at-large candidates for whom I voted still advance to the general election. My choice for mayor doesn't even get to advance.

So, even though I didn't get to have a say about Arnold, it seems that a lot of people did. I ran across a somewhat humorous commentary at forbes.com about Arnold's near-term plans for dealing with the California budget crisis. It seems as though Arnold is planning on applying for federal aid.

Excerpts:

Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said he would appeal to the White House directly for federal aid, hopefully meeting with President George W. Bush when he travels through California for fundraisers on his way to Asia next week....

It's a swell idea. After all, California and Iraq both are seeking new direction after sudden recalls of unpopular regimes. But there are a few problems.

First, the fact that President Bush will be raising money in the state--something he is unlikely to do in, say, Al Kut, anytime soon--suggests that California is still a rich state that might be expected to pay its own way. While the Golden State is simpatico with Iraq in the sense that both have suffered power outages and both are sometimes said to be the size of California (California, as it happens, is exactly the size of California), that's about as far as it goes. With the federal budget also in deficit and California not actually having been invaded, it might get less aid than it would receive in an ideal world.

I especially enjoyed the observation that "California, as it happens, is exactly the size of California." Read the rest of the commentary for more chuckles.

Regardless of the humor in this piece, I do find it somewhat disturbing that Arnold appears to be planning on seeking a federal bail-out. I won't be surprised when he gets it, either. Our federal government has a long history of bailing out organizations that refuse to have the discipline to take care of themselves. That's right, our federal government is simply one large, bloated enabler. Used to, you could tell the conservatives from the liberals because the conservatives wanted to stop that and the liberals wanted to keep it going. Not so much anymore. More and more, so called "conservatives" are looking to make the federal government bigger.

Comments

1- I'm disturbed by the number of people I know who do not look at voting as a civic duty, but something I do because I like to follow politics. (I don't like to follow politics, so I don't know where they get that....)

2- Those people are not conservatives. They are Republicans, but they are not conservatives. Don't confuse the two. ;)

And here's the wacky part about Arnold asking Bush for the cash: where does Arnold think the federal government got the money from in the first place? If the US keeps spending more money than it takes in, the federal government is going to have to raise taxes to pay for all of this stuff. And who pays those taxes? US citizens, just like the ones in California.

(And as long as we're running deficits, it's people buying government bonds who are paying for all these government programs. The problem is that bonds come due, with interest, so taxpayers have to pay them off EVENTUALLY. As long as "screw the kids" is the operating concept, that's fine, but I'm not a big fan of that financial theory.)

At least when we give Iraq money, it's not like it's Iraqi taxpayers asking the federal government to give them back their money. For them, it's a free ride. Until those evil NeoOilZioCons that control Bush steal all that sweet, sweet oil, that is :-)

*snrk* All your candidates lost? It happens to me all the time. You must be doing something right.

More and more, so called "conservatives" are looking to make the federal government bigger.There is no party of fiscal responsibility. We are a credit-card nation individually and collectively. Society is far richer than it was 50 or 100 years ago, yet the concept of paying our bills is more out of reach than ever. What's going on here?It's a conspiracy to make me grumpy before my time!

Immediately asking for federal money is disturbing. But I can't say that I'm surprised that he didn't have a good answer to the budget problem. The thing that disturbs me about this is that bail-outs appears to be an American (maybe world - I don't know) philosophy. It seems to me that few people want to take responsibility for their actions. This is understandable, because most people are stupid and do stupid things.